Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)
was meandering toward ending the war in afghanistan and allowing the pentagon and you have to remember when you're looking at the pentagon, you're looking at an institution that has the fine motor skills of a dinosaur. it takes the pentagon a long time to put something together, such as a timetable for withdrawal. all obama has to do, and i know it is not that simple, but i would look at the gorbachev experience. he came in 1985, he gave a speech in 1986 denouncing afghanistan as a bleeding wound. he had secretly told schultz at the military was going to get one year to turn it around. and that they wouldn't be able to. he announced a timetable, and then he was gone and 89. we need to do something similar, the military had its chances, we had 11 commanders in afghanistan in 11 years, take a look at this book by the general, which devotes a lot of attention to this. that is not a war where we can be successful. that is not in the military we have. there is no military that has ever been successful with counterinsurgency. not only that, but they have an ally in pakistan where we survived with bil
will oppose hagel no matter what. >> i believe he's the wrong person to lead the pentagon at this perilous and consequential time. >> tea party senator ted cruz tried to gin up an old conservative bogeyman. >> i'd like to draw your attention to an interview you did in 2009 with al jazeera. >> but here's the real reason. these guys don't want chuck hagel in the defense department. this is the bomb bomb iran crowd. you see, mccain and graham have led the charge for possible war against the iranians as well as syria. chuck hagel sees war as an absolute last resored. it that's why president obama picked him. the two share similar views in philosophy as the obama administration attempts to define the role of the united states in the transition to a post-superpower world. their philosophy is this. the united states must get out of these massive land wars, iraq and afghanistan, and if possible avoid future large-scale war. despite all of the posturing and starcraft, hagel's nomination, well, is not in jeopardy. not one senator who previously voiced support for hagel has changed his or her mind. i
103 different stem -- science, technologies, engineering and math -- programs within the pentagon alone. consolidating those would save $1.7 billion over the next ten years. these are programs that are not necessarily initiated by congress, by the way. so they do have the flexibility to make those changes. department of defense tuition assistance program totally duplicates our veterans tuition assistance program. so you can do in service have this access to tuition while in service and then have the identical tuition access afterwards and you can claim them both. there's nothing wrong with wanting togy an educational benefit to our troops, but we don't need to do it twice. that's a significant savings of $4.5 billion. alternative energy. we have a department of energy. their whole goal is to work on alternative energy and renewable energy and efficiency within energy. the department of defense is spending $700 million a year on research in alternative energy that totally duplicates everything we're doing everywhere else. so there's $00700 million that we should not be spending at
is confirmed and sworn in." close quote. so if anybody's under any misapprehension, i believe the pentagon press secretary has made that clear, we have a secretary of defense. he has not resigned, and he will continue to serve until such time as his successor is sworn in. and i would just say again to my friend, the senator from illinois, the assistant majority leader, we all know what a filibuster is. a filibuster is designed to kill a nomination or to defeat legislation, as the senator from tennessee said. and i would say this is equivalent to what happened back in 2005, and i have a letter here, mr. president, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to be made part of the record following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: and i will refer to it. this is a letter signed by chris dodd, our former colleague who served on the foreign relations committee, and joe biden when he was the ranking member of the foreign relations committee back in 2005. it's entitled "dear democratic colleague, we write to urge you to oppose the cloture on the bolton nomination tonight. w
secretary in a private ceremony with family members and immediate office staff at the pentagon. he later spoke to folks at the pentagon. we'll show that to you later in our program schedule. the supreme court today heard testimony in a case regarding the voting rights act of 1965. "the new york times" reporting on the oral argument today saying a central provision of that voting rights act could be in peril judging from rough or tough questioning today from the supreme court's more conservative members. they write that the law, a landmark achievement of the civil era, was challenged by shelby county, alabama, which said the requirement outlived its usefulness. we spoke about the oral argument today on "washington journal." host: the supreme court hears a case about the voting rights act today and here to talk about with us is ari berman, contributing righter at the nation. and hang von, at the heritage foundation, thank you to you. before we get into the specifics what the supreme court is hearing today,ary, tell us about the voting rights act and its history. >> it was put into place be
the pentagon and military posts have strong seasoned leadership teams. regardless of having the secretary or not having one is a portent concern. -- a point of concern. you have a good strong team that will be able to manage through this process. they have seen this coming. as you would expect the military to do, they are prepared. host: new hampshire, and the pennant caller -- caller: morning and thank you. i am so tired of the irresponsibility of the republicans. the chuck hagel thing is preposterous. how does it serve the nation to delay the president's choice? it is the first time in history that a filibuster has been used against a cabinet the sequester is the height of irresponsibility. why risk a potential double dip recession just so you can score political points? finally, you criticized the president for being out of washington and yet, -- that was and finally -- hear you are supporting a filibuster and finally, though you partly answer the question or just now, what your district and tails are large installations, i assume, other than fort campbell in your district. my brother
was the police chief in arlington, virginia. that is where the pentagon was. what i learned that day is if this country >> now i wondered in the last decade how many people have to get murdered in a mass murder for it to be enough? i've been wrong time after time after time. i'm a grand pap i have little kids at home. are 20 babies be enough. that's what we're asking for? when was that gun bought? [applause] >> i'm a law enforcement guy too. i had your job in connecticut some years ago. i want to say, nobody in law enforcement ever thinks we're doing enough. nobody ever says we can go home and stop trying to to do better. so as much as we may agree with you that the united states department of justice and local and state police forces are trying to enforce these laws as agress ily as possible. i think you need more resources and you need criminal background checks. so you can know how to keep these weapons, all weapons out of the hands who shouldn't have them, criminals, domestic abusers, the severe mentally ill. would you agree that the criminal background check expansion into priva
. the pentagon budget is expected to be cut to $47 billion over the past month. it is argued that these budget cuts would hurt military readiness. secretary ashton carter, and representatives of each branch of the military have testified. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everybody. the committee meets this morning to consider the impact of sequestration and a full year of continuing resolution on the department of defense. we welcome the deputy secretary of defense, ashton carter, and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general martin dempsey, who is accompanied by with the following friends. robert hale, chief of staff of the army, general ray odierno, vice chief of operations, mark ferguson, and general james amos, chief of staff of the air force general mark welch and chief of the national guard bureau, general frank grabs. i would like to stop by thanking all of you. please convey our thanks to the soldiers, airmen and marines at home and in harms way around the globe. they and their families deserve our utmost support. some members of congress an
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)